In regards to the
quotation from Rabbi Heschel I think religion becomes irrelevant if
does not compel us to speak and act to address the pressing social,
moral and ecological issues of our times. As Allen Boesak said: "We
will go before God to be judged, and God will ask us: 'Where are your
wounds?' and we will say, 'We have no wounds.' And God will ask, 'Was
nothing worth fighting for?'"

In The Honor Code, Anthony Appiah insightfully
addresses an interesting question: Why do moral revolutions happen
after – often long after – the arguments in favor of such moral
revolutions have been fully articulated and are widely disseminated?
Looking in detail at English dueling, the English slave trade, and
foot binding in China, Appiah notes that the moral bases for rejecting
these practices were well known, yet they persisted, sometimes for
many centuries. How, then, did change eventually happen?

In
short, Appiah asserts that codes of honor perpetuated these practices,
and changing honor codes were instrument in their cessation. For
example, an effective and important argument against slavery was that
it treated labor as a dishonorable activity that people do only when
compelled by force. This was insulting to the working class and was
instrumental in galvanizing the working class in England against
slavery. Similarly, an important reason that foot binding lost its
appeal in China was that, Chinese critics observed, the rest of the
world mocked the Chinese for the practice.

Crucially, Appiah
notes that alternatives to a practice supported by the honor code must
be found in order for the practice to abate and, eventually, be
abolished. In the case of foot binding in China, a growing number of
parents refused to marry their sons to women with tiny feet,
generating a marriage market for unbound girls and thereby eliminating
the perceive necessity of this immensely painful practice.

How
does this apply to animal issues? Animal advocates have been using
rational arguments against mistreatment of nonhuman persons for years,
and indeed most people now agree that cruelty to nonhumans is wrong
and should cease. Yet, there is little pressure from the general
public to reduce mistreatment of nonhumans on farms, and much less
interest in reducing or eliminating the products of animal
agribusiness. If Appiah’s analysis is valid, then we need 1) to
demonstrate that participating directly or indirectly in the abuse of
nonhuman persons is dishonorable and 2) to have readily available
foods, clothing, etc. that do not involve the exploitation and abuse
of nonhuman persons. I will explore these topics next week.